The Thinker--or Just Sitting Around?: This is "conservative" humor

Monday, October 23, 2006

This is "conservative" humor

and

(The thought of "needing" O'Reilly is quite remarkable...Compare this to Doonesbury, which is topical, yet witty and...FUNNY?)

7 comments:

schmidlap said...: As I've said before: name one modern conservative, anywhere, who has contributed meaningfully to the arts.

You can't. They don't exist. How can you speak to the human soul if you don't have one of your own?; Monday, October 23, 2006 1:43:00 PM
Anonymous said...: George Will writes interesting baseball books. I think P.J. O'Rourke is funny at times.; Monday, October 23, 2006 2:06:00 PM
drmagoo said...: Hey - the scientist in me says that just because I've never observed a conservative in the arts doesn't mean there isn't one.; Monday, October 23, 2006 2:07:00 PM
schmidlap said...: Anonymous - I should have specifically excluded the written word. You are correct: there are several fine conservative writers.

But I'll hang up and wait for my answer on conservative artists.; Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...: OK Schmidlap, deal there, although I have a more expansive definition of the arts. I went to see Dennis Miller in the mid-90s and thought he was the funniest person on earth. Now--what a waste.; Monday, October 23, 2006 2:35:00 PM
schmidlap said...: Doc - I'm not basing my theorem on the absence of observation. You are correct, that's not science. But I do have a falsifiable hypothesis:

1) One must have a soul to create art.
2) Conservatives have no souls.

Ergo, conservatives can't make art. QED.

Of course, my theorem could be falsified with an observed counterexample. This is really more of an epistemological debate than a scientific one...; Monday, October 23, 2006 3:50:00 PM
drmagoo said...: True. See, one would have to believe in souls, first.; Monday, October 23, 2006 4:03:00 PM